ITR legality question about hub.

Crashtest

Crashtest

New member
So I have a S2000 and we have been chatting over on s2ki.com about a rear hub issue with this car.
they tend to break under heavy stress and can loft the car in the air if it happens at the wrong time.

I understand that the ITR class was designed to keep cost low but.....

There is someone in the bay area that has found someone to make a replacement hub for us
I wanted to know what you guys think and why it would be illegal if it was.
I think Josh thinks it may be but its not a performance part or anything to make the rotating mass less.

let me know if that all makes sense.
 
You have to use stock parts or their aftermarket identical equivalents.

What makes the new hub stronger and more durable the the stock one? That -- whatever it is - is what makes this illegal.

I saw a rear hub break on a 325 in a 100 mph corner at Roebling. Bad accident. Certainly want to avoid that, but the way we have to do it in IT is to simply replace hubs on a frequent basis if they are a known weak oint.
 
You have to use stock parts or their aftermarket identical equivalents.

What makes the new hub stronger and more durable the the stock one? That -- whatever it is - is what makes this illegal.

I saw a rear hub break on a 325 in a 100 mph corner at Roebling. Bad accident. Certainly want to avoid that, but the way we have to do it in IT is to simply replace hubs on a frequent basis if they are a known weak oint.
[/b]
Click to expand...


I would argue based on the piston interpretation that a billet hub that was dimensionally identical would be fully legal in IT.
 
***There is someone in the bay area that has found someone to make a replacement hub for us***

***I would argue based on the piston interpretation that a billet hub that was dimensionally identical would be fully legal in IT.***


ITCS rule 9.1.3.C.

The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtainr eplacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacture.

100% ILLEGAL by rule ^.

Have Fu ;)
David
 
Now now Joe! No you wouldn't, you'd argue the opposite! Trying to stir the pot on Christmas, shame on you! lol......

I would argue based on the piston interpretation that a billet hub that was dimensionally identical would be fully legal in IT.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Sky's not falling though. Read the rule (not the piston specific one):

Stock replacement parts maybe obtained from sources other than the manufacturer profided they are teh exact equivalent of the replacement parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g. auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

David is right. You can't go to the local machine shop have someone make you a (lighter and stronger) billet hub. Illegal per teh words and intent of the rule.

Happy holidays!
 
Now now Joe! No you wouldn't, you'd argue the opposite! Trying to stir the pot on Christmas, shame on you! lol......
Sky's not falling though. Read the rule (not the piston specific one):

Stock replacement parts maybe obtained from sources other than the manufacturer profided they are teh exact equivalent of the replacement parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g. auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer.

David is right. You can't go to the local machine shop have someone make you a (lighter and stronger) billet hub. Illegal per teh words and intent of the rule.

Happy holidays!
[/b]
Click to expand...


Guys come on. Dimensions are the same and material is steel. PROCESS IS NOT A SPEC! Just like the piston rule cast v forged. Jeff didn't stop in to stir anything up. Before the replacement rule was put in I would have agreed with your take. There is nothing to stop it now. Even the autoparts rule does not stop it. Prove that I didn't buy it from carquest? Now lets look at the other art of that section you guys want to quote.

It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined
by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified.
Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed. Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.[/b]
Click to expand...

If an aftermarket part meeting all the criteria of the replacement rule for material and dimension can be found or made then it is legal.

Merry christmas to you all.
 
If an aftermarket part meeting all the criteria of the replacement rule for material and dimension can be found or made then it is legal.

Merry christmas to you all.
[/b]
Click to expand...

So........

The valve springs I just picked out are made of steel and have the same exact dimensions as the OEM springs. They happen to have twice the seat pressure. Legal? I think not.

While the manufactured part may not have a physical aspect that is as easy to measure as spring pressure, if it doesn't have all the same characteristics then it is illegal.

If the stock uprights are cast pieces then it is illegal to replace them with parts machined from billet (a solid block of material). If the stockers are steel, then it is illegal to replace them with aluminum, or, a higher grade steel.

My money is on the stockers not being billet pieces. And, if they aren't then replacing them with billet pieces is going to have someone writing some paper up over your car.

But, these are just my opinions and I'm sure other opinions will vary.
 
So........

The valve springs I just picked out are made of steel and have the same exact dimensions as the OEM springs. They happen to have twice the seat pressure. Legal? I think not.

While the manufactured part may not have a physical aspect that is as easy to measure as spring pressure, if it doesn't have all the same characteristics then it is illegal.

If the stock uprights are cast pieces then it is illegal to replace them with parts machined from billet (a solid block of material). If the stockers are steel, then it is illegal to replace them with aluminum, or, a higher grade steel.

My money is on the stockers not being billet pieces. And, if they aren't then replacing them with billet pieces is going to have someone writing some paper up over your car.

But, these are just my opinions and I'm sure other opinions will vary.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Ron,

Your brighter than the seat pressure arguement because the pressure (rate) would be a considered fact and would be illegal because no legal part (aftermarket) shall perform an illegal function. Cast forged or billet are all processes. Processes have be proven to not be a dimension considered in this arguement (pistons) I would even go as far as to say that by opening up that rule you have also allowed alternate cranks meeting all the correct deminsions. (good intentions you know) Kinda like the old ECU rule and how it got away. I would venture to say that the parts on the S2000 are machined from forged steel parts and there for machining from a billet piece of the same grade of steel would be completely legal as hardness would not be considered in the protest. If hardness becomes an issue then I will venture to say there are a bunch of brake rotors and pistons that all the sudden become illegal parts. I hope Greg AMy chimes in on this one to show me how far off the mark I am...:)

Ya,all have a couple on me....:)
 
Merry welded in Spherical bearing to you Joe, if you haven't fallen through the thin ice your atempting to skate on & drowned. :018:
 
hey David, I didn't say I liked it. I said it was legal. Remember I bought a tube framed GT car this year because at least the rules are consistant.....(Spend Money) IT is not the grand old girl she once was and every poorly written new rule just adds to the mess. You may think you know what the rule was supposed to do but once put to paper is can cause things you never dreamed of...:)
 
hey David, I didn't say I liked it. I said it was legal.
[/b]
Click to expand...

That is your opinion that it is legal. Mine differs and I'd file against you in a race situation. I like you and all, nothing personal, just my interpretation of the rules is different than yours.

Regardless of what you and I think the proof will be in tech/steward interpretation at the track.

Crash, my advice would be to ask tech and stewards in your region, and last but not least, a couple of your competitors. For example, I'm sure the 944 S2 (ITR car that there are a few of running around) guys would love to replace their lower arms with some billet bits. Haven't seen that done yet though in the paddock. However, if it does pop up I'd fully expect someone to write paper over it, at least in the Southeast.

Ron

:114:
 
Ron,
Opinion can be based in fact also. Look back to the gret piston arguement when I was all about factory process. I have since learned my lesson. I would be fine with you protesting me even if you didn't like me cause thats how rules get fixed. As far a the 944 balljoint issue goes if they can figure out a way to have an aftermarket OEM replacement made that is stronger and meets the wording of the current rule them more power to them. I have to laugh because this class was built on limitations but once you open a door it is open. In this case it was a rule that was supposed to allow brake rotors and clutch discs and the like but in the end could allow rods,cranks,valves, ect if it is available in mass production and in the oem supply chain. Remember nobody ever thought an IT racer would stuff a Motec in a factory case either.

Finally ROn the stewards and tech will have nothing to do with it in the end. It will go through the COA and they will rule on the issue as the rule is written.

Merry Christmas and we will be glad to have you all in GT soon.....:)
 
I have to agree with Joe that asking local officials is a waste of time. Very few think about the IT specific rules anywhere near as much as the regulars on this board.
While I do not agree with some opinions on this board we do a very good job of exposing the different arguments pro and con and give a racer the different sides of the argument need to evaluate such a decision.
How the COA would rule is a crap shoot.
 
OK,so as suspected, the piston rule is not pertinant to the conversation. HOWEVER:

I agree with Joe in a practical sense, by probably not in application. Here is why...A forged widget of identical exterior dimensions to a cast widget should weigh less by nature...making it illegal to the replacement part rule.

IF you could match the stock part in every dimension - and weight is included in that, then I agree with Joe that the method of manufacture is not dictated by the rules...but are there really dimensionally identical parts out there that are forged that weigh the same as cast (stock)?
 
OK,so as suspected, the piston rule is not pertinant to the conversation. HOWEVER:

I agree with Joe in a practical sense, by probably not in application. Here is why...A forged widget of identical exterior dimensions to a cast widget should weigh less by nature...making it illegal to the replacement part rule.

IF you could match the stock part in every dimension - and weight is included in that, then I agree with Joe that the method of manufacture is not dictated by the rules...but are there really dimensionally identical parts out there that are forged that weigh the same as cast (stock)?
[/b]
Click to expand...


Funny because that is the exact argument that was made between cast and forged pistons. You may choose to question how it pertains but it cleary does.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...wtopic=2600&hl=
 
How about this, plane and simple: The INTENT of the rule would make this illegal...............

Kind of like a vacuum line into an ECU.................. ;)
 
How about this, plane and simple: The INTENT of the rule would make this illegal...............

Kind of like a vacuum line into an ECU.................. ;)
[/b]
Click to expand...


Exactly but the COA does not rule on intent.
 
How about this, plane and simple: The INTENT of the rule would make this illegal...............

Kind of like a vacuum line into an ECU.................. ;)
[/b]
Click to expand...

I wasn't going to go there, but since Jeff opened the door....

I find it the ultimate irony that Andy doesn't think this is legal.

As far as the piston rule goes, it sounds as if Andy felt that forged pistons were not legal prior to the additional language being added to the ITCS. Is that a correct assumption Andy?

I agree w/ Joe, the way the rules are written, these would be legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top